They just doing this cause they don.t want any honest hard working lawyers dipping into their source of wealth that took years fir them to achieve.

Jeeeez! seem like everything we do these days is some sort of an offense to someone!

So now the lawyers are going to decide who will now be PERFECT to be a lawyer???????

I would suggest that the legal community do some house cleaning in their own house before telling others how they have to run their house.

I see nothing wrong with respecting the religious freedom of a mainstream christian private school. So long as their knowledge of the legal system meets the minimum standard they should have the same right as any other Canadian to participate in a legal profession.

Forcing someone’s moral beliefs on others through eligibility to the bar is a slippery slope. Having standards that form a foundation of moral integrity should not be a crime.

This is a very slippery slope. Once we start deciding that Christians can’t have their own school, where do we draw the line?

If we don’t like a Jewish belief, can we decide that they should be barred from using the land title system and owning land? The Nazis did this, was it right?

If we don’t like a Hindu belief, should they be banned from wearing a head dress to school?

We have a charter of rights and freedoms in this country. It has been challenged before by these same groups and the Charter has always upheld. It will be upheld again. These lawyers know this, but want to abuse the legal system to punish a particular group of society.

If our lawyers don’t want to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then I say strip them of their right to practice law. The Law Society should add a rule that their members will uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Wow, you guys are really missing the point here. Good thing there are lawyers who can at least spot the constitutional issues! Just think how many people would be precluded from attending this law school. THAT is the issue. Is it fair to have a aw school in our province that disallows people (and not that it really matters, but probably a LOT of people) on the basis of their sexual preferences and practices. People that OMG might have sex outside marriage?

You can’t have a law school that offends the Canadian Chater and civil union laws with its covenant. Talk about getting off on the wrong foot. To be taken seriously, you have to respect the laws of the land as they exist today in this secular country.

Who cares if they are gay or go to christian school to get their degree. Lawyers always like to drag things out so they can make more money off the backs of people that can’t really afford their 250+ an hour. I agree, a LOT of lawyers in this town should look at their own back yard before they pass judgement on who is allowed to become lawyers. We need more lawyers, competition. As it is in PG, they have a lil club amongst themselves where they inform each other about people and I’ve heard of even blacklisting people.

The fight has happened before when Trinity Western started teaching teachers. The constitution is clear. In this country we have freedom of religion and the lawyers know it too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Western_University_v._British_Columbia_College_of_Teachers

Lawyers are an exceedingly self-serving bunch. If you laid them all end to end they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion.

Hmm. Canadian Constitution clearly provides freedom of association, i.e., I can hang with whomever I feel comfortable with, and freedom of religion – I’m free to practice my beliefs – no matter how screwy someone thinks they are.

Canadian Constitution prohibits discrimination based upon sex – i.e. gender – orientation is not mentioned, and I was around when it was written, and the politicians that wrote it were saying then – it means gender – not orientation – because at the time, people were afraid it would become just that.

Then, Human Rights Acts of various provinces and Canada added orientation as protected, and the Supreme Court of Canada found that constitutional.

So one group are in the actual constitution, the other group are an add on through human rights legislation – you’d think Trinity would win, considering the very same argument – as posted by Icicle, has already been made at the Supreme Court of Canada, and Trinity won.

We do have religious accommodation in this country, which is why I cannot carry a weapon into a courthouse, but a Sikh can, I cannot insist that the RCMP change their uniform to allow my Scottish heritage of wearing a kilt, but a Sikh can make them accommodate their religious attire. I cannot give testimony in court with my face covered – but a Muslim women can. It seems people get PO’d whenever it’s the Christian religion that’s acting silly, but have all sorts of accommodation for the other religions. And what are their positions on homosexuality?

From: RealSikhism.com

Q: What are Sikhism’s beliefs on homosexuality?

A: Sikhism has no specific teachings about homosexuality. The holy scripture of Sikhs, Guru Granth Sahib Ji, does not explicitly mention homosexuality; however, married life is encouraged time and time again in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Whenever marriage is mentioned, it is always in reference to a man and a woman.

Hinduism – they aren’t sure, some say yes, some say no.

And Islam – from missionislam.com
Treatment of homosexuals within Islam:

According to a pamphlet produced by Al-Fatiha, there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. 5 Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ in terms of penalty:

The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted.

The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted.

The Sha’fi school of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act. Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.

Icicle said, “Once we start deciding that Christians can’t have their own school, where do we draw the line?”

Of course, nobody has said that Christians can’t have their own school, and most people will acknowledge that they can. They can even discriminate against other people of whom they disapprove, as long as they get no government support.

That is the rub, the government support, because that will be seen as sanctioning their discrimination. Trinity Western wants acceptance for its graduates, but only if their discrimination is accepted and so endorsed. Canadian law is quite clear, no person and no institution may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Their graduates should not be accepted as equivalent to a public university. However, I do think they could be evaluated on an individual basis to see if they meet the criteria for admission to the bar or require more training in anti-discrimination law. Remember, all their graduates have agreed to meet the discrimination requirement, so their commitment to the Canadian anti-discrimination value system must be suspect.

Icicle also said, “The Law Society should add a rule that their members will uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Isn’t that exactly what this special meeting is for, to insist that the lawyers produced by Trinity Western understand and accept the Charter?

Ammonra, do you feel there is a difference between what each student accepts and what each students forces down the general public’s throat? I think there is a difference.

If a student chooses to abstain from all sex until they are married, why would that preclude them from being a lawyer?

I choose to brush my teeth with Crest. I don’t have any problem with others using Colgate.

What it comes down to is whether Christians, who choose to live a certain lifestyle, can be lawyers.

Icicle, I am not sure I understood your first question. Please rephrase it.

The objections I have seen do not revolve around any student voluntarily abstaining from premarital sex, so your putting it that way is a red herring. It is about the university withholding admission to their school if students refuse to be coerced into giving such a commitment. The second objection is that it specifically refers to marriage as between a man and a woman, rather than acknowledge that Canadian law permits marriage between two men or two women. A homosexual or lesbian could not in good conscience sign such a promise since it would violate their conscience as to what marriage is about. Effectively, as the university governors know, this requirement keeps homosexuals and lesbians out of its programs.

Your likening it to toothpaste is insulting. This is a human rights issue. Have some respect for that.

It does not come down to whether Christians can be lawyers. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are plenty of Christian lawyers who were educated in publicly funded universities and Christians can still go to those for their legal training. Then they can live whatever lifestyle they choose. The fact is, nobody cares how they live. This is about Trinity Western wanting Canada and its provinces to endorse their anti-homosexual discrimination and allow them to violate basic freedoms guaranteed in the charter. It is not appropriate for lawyers to endorse that, not even when coerced by the university because of decisions taken by its board of governors.

Looking at the whole world in general, Christians don’t seem to be faring very well these days.

Okay, fact is TWU discriminate against pretty much everyone who is not an Evangelical Christian. The agreement that says – no sex unless married, and married is boy girl, also says, must believe in Jesus, must believe Bible is inspired word of God, must not drink or smoke on campus, must not swear, must not look at pornography, must cultivate Christian virtues,

must be pro-life – yes, from their webpage :treat all persons with respect and dignity, and uphold their God-given worth from conception to death

So not sure why the focus is just on gay’s can’t go, no one of another religion can go unless they want to sign the document and just play along. Atheists are certainly not welcome.

So, how can TWU even exist in this world? Because – believe it or not, lots of Christians find secular universities have effectively barred them. Secular universities compel them to accept Evolution as fact, rather than theory, compel them to read literature they find offensive, and all to often, professors take opportunity to ridicule their faith. Many Christians just don’t feel welcome at secular Universities – so, they built their own.

And, the Charter protects religious freedom – a clearly defined right, whereas sexual orientation was implied by the Supreme Court in the Egan case in 1995.

TWU does not receive direct government funding except for research grants, as do all universities – public or private.

Myself, people are people, and don’t care if gay or straight. But I understand why a place like TWU exists, and I highly doubt it’s lawyers will go on a mission to eradicate homosexuals. If anything, they’ll likely be the lawyers that’ll do your case pro bono because it’s part of their mission in life.

Putting religious conditions on anyone is absolutely foolish.

Thank-you ammonra, for the eloquent and succinct framing of the issue. Nice to see.